100,000 isn’t a lot for many blogs, where the use of third-party software like Disqus encourages free-for-alls.  I probably could up page views significantly with such software, but I like the comment section the way it is, so that’s not in the plans.

The pace of commenting is picking up.  When we left Blogger in mid-June 2011, there were just over 32,000 comments in 2 1/2 years.  We’re now running at about 7,000 comments a month.

We now have 4857 registered users, and have had to ban only 76 usernames (representing fewer people because a handful of banned people kept registering new usernames).  Not using third-party comment software helps keep out the drive-by commenters, who usually are just on hit-and-run missions anyway.

I’m glad I upgraded the server package a month ago, because we survived the first and likely only and last Drudge link we’ll ever receive, at the peak 1,000 visits per minute.  And the blog didn’t even hiccup.  Thanks Ed for a great doomsday configuration.

What a year so far.  Was able to change the national conversation for a day or two on the Newt-Reagan relationship, the phony Contraception War, and the Stop Rush effort.  And the candidates, Mia B. Love and Richard Mourdock.  And in a category all her own, Elizabeth Warren.  And The Tweet.

Things are looking up.  I think Anne has been a great addition, and hopefully she won’t succumb to blogger burnout.

Sleep well, the walls are guarded.

Last night was bad. The law passed by the Senate and House really is that horrible.

But it’s the morning after, and your mourning should be over.

The mainstream media and the nutroots will try to demoralize you, and there will be plenty of gloat to go around.

But remember how we got to last night.

November 4, 2008, was the culmination of multiple generations of journalistic and educational malpractice and liberal guilt, malfeasance by Republicans who lost their way while in power, and a mass delusion on par with the tulipomania of 17th century Holland.

On November 5, 2008, did any one of you think that over 16 months later Obama would barely be able to pass a truncated version of his dream of single payer, and that dozens of Democrats would join Republicans in opposition?

As the mainstream media celebrated the permanent Democratic majority in the weeks after the 2008 election, did any of you think that in March 2010 we would be talking about the Democratic majority being in danger?

On January 20, 2009, when Obama took office, and then again in April when Arlen Specter jumped ship, did any one of you think we could hold off Obamacare beyond July?

In August and September, did you think we would make it to the end of the year, and then in early January 2010, did any of you (other than me) think Scott Brown could win and we could prevent a Democratic super-majority?

Your hard work has paid off, even if the end result was not what we wanted. But trust me, without you it would have been much, much worse.

For over a year Obama has not been able to push through other destructive aspects of his agenda, and the clock is running out before the mid-term elections.

The hard work must continue through the November elections because Democrats know they have just a few more months.

So shake off the gloom, get your asses in gear, get over it, and get to work continuing to fight the worst government policies “since the Great Depression.”

We have no other choice.

You know what comes next.

Despite the fact that Harvard Law Unbound used a banner which specifically alerted readers to the fact that it was not affiliatied with “Unbound – Harvard Journal of the Legal Left,” the editors of that Journal along with the HLS administration alleged that the website misled people as to the source of the opinion.  (See link above for details on the threats and the involvement of the HLS administration)

It is interesting that this action came only after the website challenged Holder’s appearance tomorrow.

I wrote to the HLS Dean of Students, as follows:

Dear Dean Cosgrove:

As you may be aware, I have been covering the protest at the website Harvard Law Unbound regarding Eric Holder.

I am aware of your letter to students in which you say, among other things,

Whoever is responsible for the wordpress site is free to disseminate his/her/their content via any number of legitimate means or channels. But I wish to make sure that no one is confused about whose speech, and whose content, is being advanced on the wordpress site, which appears to be infringing on the use-of-name rights belonging to Unbound and to Harvard Law School.

Given that Harvard Law Unbound has a disclaimer at the top in the banner which says “no affiliation with Unbound: Harvard Journal of the Legal Left,” I am wondering on what basis HLS claims likelihood of confusion as to the source of the opinion.

Additionally, since the website has been operating since early April, is this the first time HLS became aware of the website, and if not, why did HLS wait to assert the claim?

I would appreciate your response.

William A. Jacobson, HLS ’84
Legal Insurrection Blog

Now the website has been taken down.

The RSS feed still works.  And if not, here’s a pdf. of the posts, preserving the content solely for news and historical purposes.

The views expressed therein obviously in no way  reflect the “left,” much less the  ”legal left,” much less the “Harvard legal left,” much less the “Harvard Journal of the Legal Left,” because none of those groups would dare challenge Eric Holder on the day he is honored by Harvard Law School over something like Fast and Furious, in which people died and the House of Representatives is trying to find out if Holder lied.

“Harvard Law Unbound” RSS Feed

This time it’s Mia B. Love, being interviewed by Jonathan Karl of ABC News:

Mia Love is unlike any Congressional candidate ever — she is African-American, she is Mormon, and she is conservative. Republicans have deemed her race in Utah’s newly drawn 4th district one of the top ten most important races in the country, vowing to spare no expense to get her to Congress. If she wins, Love would be the first black Republican woman ever elected to the House of Representatives.

You can support Love at her website.

Robert Stacy McCain took up the story, and has been digging into the backround of Kimberlin and his alleged connections to a non-profit and Democratic donors.

Now the story has gone from bad to worse, as indicated in McCain’s post yesterday and again today:

Convicted terrorist Brett Kimberlin on Monday continued his effort to silence those who write about his criminal past by contacting my wife’s employer, claiming that I was “harassing” him. The resulting security concern required immediate relocation if I was to be able to continue writing about the case of Kimberlin, a violent felon, perjurer and admitted tax cheat who is employed as the director of a 501(c)3 non-profit that has collected $1.8 million in contributions since 2005.

The story is not about McCain as such.  It’s about how bloggers, who don’t have large organizations and cadres of lawyers standing behind them, can be the subjects of attempted intimidation through a perceived weakpoint, such as an employer.

I’ve been subjected to periodic complaint letters and not just in connection with the Stop Rush effort:

One of the people behind Stop Rush not only has suggested I should worry about my job, that person repeatedly has tweeted to my employer complaining about me.

If true that Kimberlin contacted McCain’s wife’s employer, that would elevate it to an entirely new level, particularly in light of the history.

Protect and support your local blogger.  Think where you’d be without us.

Update:  It’s worth noting this ending to McCain’s post:

The National Bloggers Club, Inc, a non-profit organization that organizes the annual Blog Bash event celebrating free-market bloggers, is making available a press contact for those interested in learning more about this story:

director@blogbash.org

Added Via Ace:

I wonder how long they will stay up.  And how long before half of the Justice Department is tasked with unmasking the force behind Harvard Law Unbound.

The protest is organized by a website “Harvard Law Unbound,” which in its banner notes that it is not connected to “Unbound – harvard journal of the legal left.”

Apparently “Unbound” previously had objected to this website using the name “Harvard Unbound” and the website was taken down. But using the current configuration, the website has operated since April 9.  The website was no secret, as it was written up both in the Harvard Law Record (April 16) and Above the Law (April 17).  [Correction: While the website has been up since April 9, the name referenced in these articles was a Tumblr account for Firmly Refuse.  The posters distrubted on campus by the group call it an "Unbound campaign."]

But all of the sudden, with the website getting publicity regarding Holder’s visit, a person claiming to speak on behalf of Unbound has attempted to get the protest website shut down, and posted a comment asserting a violation of WordPress terms of service and copyright law:

Andrew says:

May 22, 2012 at 11:34 am

How curious that the objection and attempt to shut down the website comes just as the Holder protest is starting, even though the website has been operating openly for over a month.

I have an e-mail into the person believed to be responsible for the notice.  I will let you know the position of “Unbound - harvard journal of the legal left” if and when received.

Update:  A Legal Insurrection reader who attends HLS forwarded me this e-mail in which HLS officially joins the case against the website:

From: Ellen Cosgrove [**********@law.harvard.edu]

Sent: 5/22/2012 3:32:01 PM

To: law2012@lists.law.harvard.edu; llm@lists.law.harvard.edu

Subject: a note re: Class Day

We look forward to celebrating with you and your guests this Wednesday and Thursday.

Some of you have heard about a wordpress website that is protesting our Class Day speaker, Attorney General Eric Holder — a site that uses the word “Unbound ” in its name. I wish to make clear that this site has no connection to Unbound, one of our student law journals.

To be clear, Unbound’s website is http://www.legalleft.org/ and their leadership is upset by this anonymous attempt to use their name.

Whoever is responsible for the wordpress site is free to disseminate his/her/their content via any number of legitimate means or channels. But I wish to make sure that no one is confused about whose speech, and whose content, is being advanced on the wordpress site, which appears to be infringing on the use-of-name rights belonging to Unbound and to Harvard Law School.

Ellen M. Cosgrove I Associate Dean & Dean of Students I Harvard Law School I 1585 Massachusetts Ave. I Suite 3039 I Cambridge, MA 02138

Further update:  Harvard Law succeeds in taking down anti-Holder Fast and Furious protest website.

Because Team Obama is proving itself to be too smart by half, and too incompetent by three-quarters.

There is a way to do Bain, but I’m done giving that advice.  Rehashing old news, which already has been out for months, isn’t going to do the trick.

Cory Booker stuck a fork in the balloon, putting Obama and AxelPlouffe on the defensive, but Booker didn’t say anything that already wasn’t percolating to the top anyway.  Yet Think Progress already is going after Booker; they’re eating their own!

And AxelPlouffe seems surprisingly tongue tied:

If Obama intends to make Bain a centerpiece of the campaign, but he’s going to have to do better than this.

So far, Team Obama has shown no ability to land a blow with the Bain bat in a room full of Mitts.

Mitt’s biggest liability has made Obama look foolish.  Some people have all the luck.

SCHULTZ: Wait a minute. Did she ever put down on an application that she was Native American? It’s fair question. And if she did, so what. It was years ago or whatever. But what they are trying to do is paint her out who is someone that is not credible, not telling the truth, hiding something, maybe took an advantage when she didn’t deserve it. I just think that needs to be addressed. When you pick up the largest newspapers in the country and they are writing about this, it would seem it’s disfocusing the campaign somewhat.

There are other shoes to drop.  I wish I could tell you more, but I can’t.  It’s just a matter of when.

Update:  Twila Barnes continues her genalogical work, and in a post today dispels the comparison made by defenders of Warren to Cherokee Chief Bill John Baker, who allegedly is only 1/32 Cherokee.  Barnes has tracked both families, and reports as follows:

Several  times, I have either read or heard [Warren] compared to  the Principal Chief of the  Cherokee Nation, Bill John Baker, because  some give her the benefit of the  doubt and say Warren might have the  same blood quantum as Baker. IF, and I  capitalized that on purpose,  because we are talking “big if” here, she actually  had a Cherokee  ancestor, and IF it was the ancestor she claims through, that  might be  true, but it isn’t….

Now we are starting to see a very big difference in the two families. Ms.  Warren’s is showing a very distinct pattern of living as whites while Chief  Baker’s is showing a very distinct pattern of living as Indians. We find Ms.  Warren’s great grandfather listed as white on five different documents. We find  Chief Baker’s great grandmother listed as Indian and/or Cherokee numerous times  on many different documents.

And this meme will continue to grow:

And, while Rome burns, Ben Affleck-Hosted Fundraiser for Elizabeth Warren Draws Big Stars, Big Bucks.

From reader Angie:

This is not a bumper sticker, but traveling along the coast in southern OREGON, we came upon this rather large sign. The small town seemed to be struggling.

Maybe there’s hope.

Follow up email from Angie:

Drove by it again today, and the opposition has painted over “Obama.” Unfortunately, we leave for home tomorrow, so we’ll be unable to monitor this battle. People here have told us this sw part of Oregon tends to be conservative, while Portland and the college towns are the liberal parts of the state. (The sign is in Port Orford.)

Holder will be greeted with posters protesting Holder’s stalling of the congressional investigation into Fast and Furious.  The protest is being run by student(s) behind a website called Harvard Law Unbound.

The title of the website is a take-off on Unbound – Harvard Journal of the Legal Left, which Professor Bainbridge has listed as a contender for “the least necessary organization in the law  school world.”  Having scrolled through its website, I’d say Prof. Bainbridge was far too nice.  Prof. Jonathan Adler found this early nugget:

Ultimately, I propose that it is irrelevant whether the stories I tell here are “true,” as in fair or “factually” accurate. I see them through my own set of values and my social location as a white, heterosexual woman. I put the spin of my own brain and heart on them. I admit that right now.

Havard Law Unbound has been plastering Harvard Law bulletin boards with a variety of anti-Big Law posters this spring, and now has turned its attention to Holder’s appearance on Wednesday with posters such as this one:

Today we launch a new Unbound Campaign:  “Think  Bigger:  Help Hold Eric Holder Accountable for ‘Fast and Furious.”

This is our first four-poster campaign.  As before, posters will be going up on bulletin boards throughout the Law School to publicize some of the issues brought to the fore by Eric Holder’s visit to the campus this Wednesday.

I wonder how long they will stay up.  And how long before half of the Justice Department is tasked with unmasking the force behind Harvard Law Unbound.

Updates 5-22-2012:  Harvard Law “journal of the legal left” attempts to silence anti-Holder protest website and Harvard Law succeeds in taking down anti-Holder Fast and Furious protest website.

Better yet, Rebel Pundit got out and led the crowd in chants, holding a “Breitbart Is Here” sign:

Seems just like the time Andrew Breitbart led Code Pink anti-capitalism protesters through the streets on his roller blades after joining the crowd shouting “hey, hey Ho Chi Minh!”

Should the State Department be authorized to allow its propaganda to be broadcast to us in the U.S.?

Or, should we maintain the separation barring U.S. propaganda produced for foreign audiences from being broadcast in the U.S.?

Representatives Mac Thornberry (R-TX) and Adam Smith (D-WA) in their “The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012” (H.R. 5736), suggest the former–that it is time to free up the authority to broadcast U.S.-produced foreign propaganda in the U.S.

Their bill was included as amendment 114 to the Defense Authorization Act and passed out of the House on Friday, May 18. It would amend two existing acts: the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 and the Foreign Relations Authorization Act (1987).

The Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 provides for the terms of public diplomacy (non-military) by authorizing the State Department to communicate with foreign audiences through a variety of means, from broadcast to publishing of books, media, and online sources of information. Its original supporters argued that it was needed during the Cold War in order to combat Soviet propaganda. In the 1990s, the mission took on the form of the Broadcasting Board of Governors. In 1972, it was amended to prohibit domestic access to the information that was intended for foreign audiences.

The text of the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act (2012) provides:

Sec. 501. (a) The Secretary and the Broadcasting Board of Governors are authorized to use funds appropriated or otherwise made available for public diplomacy information programs to provide for the preparation, dissemination, and use of information intended for foreign audiences abroad about the United States, its people, and its policies, through press, publications, radio, motion pictures, the Internet, and other information media, including social media, and through information centers, instructors, and other direct or indirect means of communication.

(b)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the Secretary and the Broadcasting Board of Governors may, upon request and reimbursement of the reasonable costs incurred in fulfilling such a request, make available, in the United States, motion pictures, films, video, audio, and other materials prepared for dissemination abroad or disseminated abroad.

A press release from Representative Thornberry stresses the need to modernize the law:

“We continue to face a multitude of threats and we need to be able to counter them in a multitude of ways.  Communication is among the most important,” said Rep. Thornberry.  “This outdated law ties the hands of America’s diplomatic officials, military, and others by inhibiting our ability to effectively communicate in a credible and transparent way. Congress has a responsibility to fix the situation,” Thornberry said.

“While the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 was developed to counter communism during the Cold War, it is outdated for the conflicts of today.”

Because the amendment was attached to the Defense Authorization Act, it didn’t garner much attention. Michael Hastings at Buzzfeed writes:

The new law would give sweeping powers to the State Department and Pentagon to push television, radio, newspaper, and social media onto the U.S. public. “It removes the protection for Americans,” says a Pentagon official who is concerned about the law. “It removes oversight from the people who want to put out this information. There are no checks and balances. No one knows if the information is accurate, partially accurate, or entirely false.”

Historically, there were concerns about the powers it the Smith-Mundt Act originally provided the federal government, especially in times of peace. According to the book The Voice of America and the Domestic Propaganda Battles, 1945-1953:

Underlying Truman’s actions was the liberal proposition that the federal government could promote peace and correct misunderstandings about the United States by disseminating “full and fair” information to foreign publics….Truman’s executive order challenged the argument that propaganda was required only during war.

From the conservative point of view, liberal Democrats had spread, at great financial cost, the powers and responsibilities of the federal government into areas in which it had no prerogative, and the VOA was just another exanmple of this encroachments.

And, take a look at the Broadcasting Board of Governors website. There is an error in their mission statement. While it may seem insignificant, if they’re in charge of communicating, among other things, American values, they ought to be more specific:

To inform, engage, and connect people around the world in support of freedom and democracy.

As we have seen with the Occupy protesters, who are calling for “democracy,” there is a world of difference between democracy and representative republic. But Matt Armstrong at MountainRunner argues that Smith-Mundt “creates and encourages opposing views in how we operate and organize.”

Would you like to have greater access to U.S.-produced foreign propaganda, or does that allow the federal government powers it ought not have?

Bay State Democrats are standing by their woman, saying they’re confident in embattled Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren — now three weeks into a persistent scandal over her claims of Native American heritage — though critics say she’ll arrive at her party’s state convention next month battered by it.

“This is a race that is a dead heat,” said state Democratic Party chairman John Walsh, citing a recent poll and insisting the flap has had no effect on Warren’s standing as the party’s front-runner. He said no one is talking about replacing her. “It’s not a sentiment that is out there at all.”

“The Democratic Party is really stuck,” countered University of New Hampshire political science professor Andrew Smith. “They essentially cleared the path for her as a candidate, and they can’t get rid of her now. She could conceivably drop out, but I doubt that will be the case, and I doubt the party will try to push her aside.”

Being stuck in Elizabethville is neither literally nor figuratively correct.

First, there is another Democratic candidate, Marisa DeFranco.  Second, as Ed Morrissey points out, since when have Democrats bothered with rules; just massage the process to give someone else a chance to run.

Massachusetts Democrats need to understand that the Cherokee issue is not going to go away:

Even though the questions on her ancestry won’t go away, Elizabeth Warren  continues to ignore the fact that this is an issue that we would like her to  address. I guess we Cherokees, the very people she claimed to be, don’t really  matter to her unless she can use us to get what she wants out of life. I have  thought about what she needed to say to end this matter. I wondered if she could  end this and manage to get out of it gracefully and with some dignity intact. I  believe she could have, had she have dealt with this immediately, but she  didn’t….

Unfortunately, Elizabeth Warren continues to see her false claims of Indian  ancestry as a non-issue. Because of this, I have no option but to continue to  condemn both her claim and her failure to acknowledge that she has insulted and  disrespected the Cherokee people, the Native American population and the  American public.

There is more to come.  Trust me on that one.

Update:  You know she’s in trouble when she’s losing Boston Magazine, Elizabeth Warren: The Cherokee Fable That Won’t Go Away:

If Warren doesn’t somehow own up, this mess, and not just her recipes in Pow Wow Chow, may leave a bad taste in voters’ mouths in November … if she makes it that far. It is on the verge of becoming part of how voters internalize her persona, like when Martha Coakley called Curt Schilling a Yankee fan. It showed that Coakley was clueless and a bit of a detached elitist. That’s what is now at stake for Warren.

Cruz has been working hard as an insurgent candidate, similar to what Richard Mourdock did in Indiana.  David Dewhurst is not an incumbent, but he’s the establishment candidate and has far more money than Cruz.

But unlike Lugar, there’s no reason that I have seen to think Dewhurst would be  a Lugar in the Senate.  The race is not, in my view, an anti-Dewhurst narrative.

We need someone who will be a solid conservative leader in the Senate and the party, someone who will fight hard for principle, and who has the history to give us comfort.  From everything I have seen, Cruz has the leadership qualities needed to distinguish between two conservative candidates.

Sound-bite:  “It’s the leadership.”

The gap is closing, with Dewhurst’s lead down to single digits.  As we saw in the Mourdock-Lugar race, when the electoral dam breaks, it breaks big.  And the momentum appears to be with Cruz, at least enough to force a run-off election:

Texas’ Republican primary for U.S. Senate is close — and could be headed for a July 31 runoff — with Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst holding a single-digit lead over former Solicitor General Ted Cruz, according to the latest University of Texas/Texas Tribune poll.

Dewhurst had the support of 40 percent of likely voters, followed by Cruz at 31 percent. Former Dallas Mayor Tom Leppert had 17 percent and broadcaster and former football player Craig James was at 4 percent, with five other GOP candidates bringing up the rear.

Daron Shaw, a UT-Austin government professor and co-director of the poll, said Cruz has been able to position himself to the right of the lieutenant governor for a May 29 Republican primary where that’s a big advantage — and he’s done that in a year in which insurgent candidates have been scoring big wins against establishment Republicans.

At a minimum, let the two face off in a run-off election.  If I could vote, I’d vote for Ted Cruz.

Newark N.J. Mayor Cory Booker (D) expressed reserve about the Obama campaign’s Bain strategy against Mitt Romney, telling “Meet The Press” viewers on Sunday that he was “uncomfortable” with the line of attacks.

“This kind of stuff is nauseating to me on both sides,” Booker said. “It’s nauseating to the American public. Enough is enough. Stop attacking private equity.”

Time to walk it back:

Newark Mayor Cory Booker released a Web video Sunday emphasizing his support for President Obama and clarifying remarks he made earlier in the day where he criticized the president’s campaign tactics as “nauseating.”

“I used the word ‘nauseating’ on Meet the Press because that’s really how I feel, when I see people in my city struggling with real issues,” said Booker in the video. “I get very upset when I see such a level of dialogue that calls us to our lowest common denominators and not the kind of things that can unify us as a nation and move us forward as a nation.”